ugly perl module install

Mathieu Arnold mat at
Mon Aug 9 11:44:15 PDT 2004

+-Le 09/08/2004 14:29 -0400, Michael W. Lucas a dit :
| On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:20:11PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
|> On Monday 09 August 2004 19:32, Michael W. Lucas wrote:
|> > Hi,
|> > 
|> > Before I go state in an article that we have an ugly port, I thought
|> > I'd mention it to the maintainer (ports@)
|> Ports@ is no maintainer, it's a mailinglist.
| ratbastard/usr/ports/net-mgmt/p5-Cflow;grep -i maintainer Makefile 
| MAINTAINER=     ports at
| ratbastard/usr/ports/net-mgmt/p5-Cflow;
| So, I wrote the maintainer.  :-)

>From the porter's handbook, chapter 15 :
| Note that unmaintained ports are listed with a maintainer of
| ports at, which is just the general ports mailing list, so
| sending mail there probably will not help in this case.


|> > Surely we could, say, include a patch to net-mgmt/p5-Cflow to make the
|> > port check for $PREFIX/lib/libft.a rather than the ../../lib/libft.a?
|> > 
|> > If not, I'll document the ugliness in this instance and make a cranky
|> > comment about how knowing how to actually build software is still
|> > useful these days, and these kids don't know how good they have it
|> > with "configure" and so on...  ;-)
|> A working patch/Makefile change/whatever, submitted via send-pr would be
|> more  useful. It seems you already have spent some time figuring the
|> problem out,  why not provide a fix?
| If just patching the source like this is legal, then I'll do that.

Well, look at the number of files named patch-* in the ports tree, you'll
see how much we patch :-)

| I don't generally go near the ports, and hence don't keep up with the
| standard way of doing things (other than the user perspective, of
| course.)

It only hurts the first time ;-)

Mathieu Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 479 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list